We're lucky that there has never been an undeserving champion. There are of course those who deserved it who didn't win, and who deserved it more than those who did win, but that doesn't make any on the list undeserving.

To take some of the names at random. Rosberg won in a car that had no right to be in the title contention. Daly was reckoned a decent hand and he only came close to podiuming once. Rosberg deserves one for ignoring most of the politics and just driving.

Damon Hill in 1994 kept a team together in the face of tragedy and nearly won the title despite being up against a cheat driving an illegal car. He would have won the 1993 title had he had his team-mate's reliability.

Jacques V nearly won as a rookie. Destroyed another decent hand in Frentzen. Ignore his BARdventure, he was a remarkable talent, and not many WCs have won Indy as well.

Denny Hulme was as tough and determined as they come. Never let on how much his 1970 Indy burns really hurt because Bruce's team needed him sans Bruce.

There is one possible exception to this and that's the first champion. Farina won by being the Last Man Standing. His pre-war career was Fisichella-esque, nothing to suggest he was anything more then decent. Straight after the war Alfa weren't interested in him, they went with the talents. They even preferred the amiable, cancer-ridden Trossi to Farina. Farina's first GP win came against a pretty weak field - Wimille had him beaten in a Gordini, after all - and come 1950 with Alfa's return to racing they were scraping the barrel to the extent that they even had the two-decades-past-it Fagioli in the team. Even given a dominant car Fangio had him beaten in nearly every race - and when Farina went to Ferrari he was never anywhere near Ascari. Throw in on top of that his double manslaughter and I'd say Nino Farina is the one chap whose name denigrates the title of champion.

But had Ferrari not forgotten Irvine's wheel the choice would be obvious.

*Give this man more gold stars. Thank you for sharing your far-ranging knowledge and astute analysis. It's valuable and rare. "Rave on, John Donne", as Van the Man would say.But what the hell is that avatar?

And if Hunt had not been dubiously DQ'd at Britain, and even more dubiously rendered uncompetitive at Monza, Lauda would have been nowhere near him. Hunt though was driving an antediluvian McLaren that Mass did the thick end of eff all with, Lauda was driving state of the art. Plus Hunt won in a Hesketh; no other driver ever scored so much as a scant point in one, and that roster included world champs in Jones and Ickx.

How many points did Hunt lose from those dubious actions? 9. You could argue he might not have spun off in Italy if not for the penalty, but that's a hard argument to make. Lauda certainly lost a lot more than 9 points because of his accident.

How many points did Hunt lose from those dubious actions? 9. You could argue he might not have spun off in Italy if not for the penalty, but that's a hard argument to make. Lauda certainly lost a lot more than 9 points because of his accident.

You are forgetting that Hunt actually lost 12 points in the title battle at Brands as Lauda ended up with 9 instead of 6. And then as mentioned Monza is on top of that

Villeneuve was given top car at time, did lot of testing and narrowly lost first season wdc to team mate Damon Hill in 1996 and next season he won it over Michael Schumacher's notorious and trademark to crash rival out and following disqualification at Suzuka. Real driver with that car would have secured WDC in late summer. Villeneuve is not real driver. He should stick with his christmas albums.

Nigel Mansell was "unfortunate" to grap world title with phenomenal car over others in 1992. Whole season was served to him in platinium plate due so perfect car. He surely deserved it though, years after being so close with all misfortune, that was nice reward for him.

I didn't follow F1 before 1988, so those are only F1 seasons I can think WDC came too easy.

I will never understand the constant circle jerk F1 fans have for the supposedly dominant Williams FW19.
The car wasnt even the fastest by the last few races of 1997, with Ferrari very close and McLaren showing serious speed... Add to that Benetton, Jordan...even Arrows showing front running pace at various stages. Villeneuve complained mid season about how Williams had basically stopped development to concentrate on the 1998 car/new rules and it showed. The early scintillating pace JV had to win races and clock up blistering pole laps had disappeared quickly. Also people ignore that it was only JV's second season of F1. His best years were wasted with BAR...years he would have challenged MH (whose 1998/99 seasons were no different to this) and his natural bitter rival MS.

You say he's the worst world champion? I say he's one of 3 greats to have won the F1 World Title/IndyCar title/Indy 500.

Damon Hill in 1994 kept a team together in the face of tragedy and nearly won the title despite being up against a cheat driving an illegal car. He would have won the 1993 title had he had his team-mate's reliability.

I am not so sure on your feelings about 1993.Had Hill been more competitive then I think that Prost would have raised his game. Prost did win 1993 with the last personal efforts as possible (as was his strategy: Do what is enough, don't overdo and risks its ends up in tears).I am pretty sure that Prost held a lot of his capabilitues hidden within his sleeves, simply because with the car he had, he didn't need it.

Just like in 2002 we saw so little of the nasty behaviour of MS he could display because with F2002's superiority in race day trim he simply did not need it anymore.

It's lucky that Irvine didn't win in 1999 and Massa didn't win in 2008 or this thread would have finished many pages ago.

I can agree with Irvine but Massa won four races in 2008 absolutely on merit, by being easily the fastest man out there, and lost another two solid wins because of an exploding engine and Renault's chicanery. Spa and Magny-Cours were certainly inherited from faster drivers on the day. Hamilton was more deserving of the 2008 title, but Felipe would've by no means disgraced the name "World Champion".

I can agree with Irvine but Massa won four races in 2008 absolutely on merit, by being easily the fastest man out there, and lost another two solid wins because of an exploding engine and Renault's chicanery. Spa and Magny-Cours were certainly inherited from faster drivers on the day. Hamilton was the more deserving of the 2008 title, but Felipe would've by no means disgraced the name "World Champion".

Meh, not disgraced it, but he would have cheapened it a little bit if you look as his career as a whole. On balance he was about the 4th best driver that year, behind Kubica, Alonso and Hamilton, and that's only out of the top teams. He did have some brilliant performances, and he is an underrated driver in many respects, but he seemed to punch above his weight that year.

Meh, not disgraced it, but he would have cheapened it a little bit if you look as his career as a whole. On balance he was about the 4th best driver that year, behind Kubica, Alonso and Hamilton, and that's only out of the top teams. He did have some brilliant performances, and he is an underrated driver in many respects, but he seemed to punch above his weight that year.

Cheapened it? Massa was a great driver and it was Hamilton's second year in F1. So why does it make Hamilton more deserving than Massa? He only won the championship by one point and Massa bettered Kimi that year. Does that make Kimi a bad champion?

I can agree with Irvine but Massa won four races in 2008 absolutely on merit, by being easily the fastest man out there, and lost another two solid wins because of an exploding engine and Renault's chicanery. Spa and Magny-Cours were certainly inherited from faster drivers on the day. Hamilton was more deserving of the 2008 title, but Felipe would've by no means disgraced the name "World Champion".

I agree. He certainly would have deserved it if he won. He performed very well that year, he made less mistakes than Hamilton and had some great drives that year. People forget that he was extremely close to the top 3 in 2007. If he didn't suffer any issues he would have been right up with the McLaren pair (Raikkonen would have been further up without his issues). In 2009 he was driving like a world champion. Having said that, I think the past three years would have made people forget he is a champion (Like I forget Nicky Hayden is one...).

Cheapened it? Massa was a great driver and it was Hamilton's second year in F1. So why does it make Hamilton more deserving than Massa? He only won the championship by one point and Massa bettered Kimi that year. Does that make Kimi a bad champion?

No, because he's demonstrated his class in other parts of his career, though I do think 2007 was one of the most average driver campaigns to have won a world championship from. Kimi was very poor in 2008, and didn't get on with a car that was demonstrably the class of the field.

I said it cheapens it when you look at Massa's career as a whole. His career outside of the years 2007-2009 has been a concotion of flashes of speed, mixed with abject mediocrity and utter howlers. We're talking about a driver who finished almost two laps down on Hamilton after a total of 5 spins at Silverstone. Hamilton, like Kimi, has demonstrated throughout the course of his career that he is in a different league to Massa. So if Massa had won in 2008, and the question was put to me "Who is the worst WDC ever?", Felipe would be one of the first names to spring to mind. Sorry if that isn't PC enough for you.

Rinehart is on a mission here to prove that Jenson's WDC is far more impressive than Kimi's. Which is of course, laughable.

I'm not on a mission to prove anything, least of all that.

But since you mention it, I rate the potential of the Red Bull challenge in 2009 far higher than you obviously, and as for 2007, had off track events not seriously hindered the mclaren challenge, Kimi would not have won the title. Take nothing away form Kimi who drove very well, but that's not why he won the title.

What is laughable is to describe the 2009 title as easy. Speaks volumes about how little someone knows of f1.

The Williams was clearly the best car in 86, yet Prost won. How does that qualify as a poor WDC? It´s exactly the opposite.

If you'd read my reason, you wouldn't have to ask. I was talking about seasons where a team with the best car allowed its two drivers to race, taking points off each other and thus allowing someone else to sneak in.

I think you´re just a TAD mistaken here. Without the spygate, and ferrari´s double floor thus being discovered and banned (which effectively destroyed the balance on the ferrari), Kimi might have had complete and utter domination, just look at his melbourne win, when he nearly fell asleep at the wheel, how easy it was. Dont be a hater

No I think it's you who is mistaken. I'm glad Kimi won in 2007. But you've built your theory around one small part of everything that went on in 2007. Mclaren lost that title.

Just because Alonso exploded because of getting "consistently" beaten by a ROOKIE driver..... and just because Hamilton couldn't close the deal...... doesn't automatically make the eventual World Champion weak.

Kimi Raikkonen won 5 races out of the final 10 races of 2007 .... & clinch the championship.... how the heck people are so dumb to call this weak. This included back-to-back wins in the final, most pressurised races of the season.

In fact, it only goes to show Kimi Raikkonen was the strongest driver of the three, mentally, physically & performer under-pressure on track.... with Alonso being the worst driver overall in a brilliant car in 2007, who eventually managed to lose the championship on track, get thrashed by a rookie driver, Cheat & collude with Ferrari materials over emails & meeting sessions, and was partly responsible for Mclaren getting the biggest fine in history.

Overall, Alonso is the worst driver to become champion.... simply because since he has become champion.... he got involved with Spygate, Crashgate, GermanyGate, FlagGate, Leave the SpaceGate, SamuraiGate, His-Car-is-better-than-mineGate.... and still continue to lose with all those added benefits in a Ferrari car to a relative Kid.

If anything, going by facts & performance in 2007... Alonso was the weakest performer while Raikkonen being the opposite in the final 12 races out the the 17 available.

The Worst Driver Champion & Year:--2005... Alonso was simply Lucky that Kimi's Mclaren kept breaking... -2006... Alonso was simply Lucky that Schumi's late challenge got thrawted with a crucial retirement just when Alonso was starting to see "Ghosts" put in his car by "his team Renualt, who didn't want him to win" .

Listen I'm pretty happy Kimi won the title in 2007 and ive never said he didnt drive well, thats not the tree ive been barking up with regards to the reason for his nomination... but all I can say about your Kimi-tinted view of the world is "ok fanboy"

Listen I'm pretty happy Kimi won the title in 2007 and ive never said he didnt drive well, thats not the tree ive been barking up with regards to the reason for his nomination... but all I can say about your Kimi-tinted view of the world is "ok fanboy"

everything about your reasons for claiming Kimi in 2007 wasn't deserving is bull crap. Who frikking cares what the hell those stupid idiots were doing in that awesome Mclaren 2007. You are only ending up proving Alonso & Hamilton cannot perform under pressure, while Kimi Raikkonen was mega at steam rolling these mentally weak drivers in the last 10 races.

Alonso & Hamilton's massive points advantage got hunted down methodically, systematically and through absolute brilliant driving on track by Kimi Raikkonen in the last 7 races.... Of which he won 4!!

Giving stupid reasons doesn't enamour a good debate. Only someone with lack of common sense will try and nominate Kimi' 2007 as worst based on "other drivers incompetence"!

everything about your reasons for claiming Kimi in 2007 wasn't deserving is bull crap. Who frikking cares what the hell those stupid idiots were doing in that awesome Mclaren 2007. You are only ending up proving Alonso & Hamilton cannot perform under pressure, while Kimi Raikkonen was mega at steam rolling these mentally weak drivers in the last 10 races.

Alonso & Hamilton's massive points advantage got hunted down methodically, systematically and through absolute brilliant driving on track by Kimi Raikkonen in the last 7 races.... Of which he won 4!!

Giving stupid reasons doesn't enamour a good debate. Only someone with lack of common sense will try and nominate Kimi' 2007 as worst based on "other drivers incompetence"!

Kimi did a good half season in 2007 which combined with McLaren/Hamilton's freak self implosion was enough to bag him the title, but he was a pedestrian for the other half of the year. It's easy to forget he was strongly being linked with a move to Williams in a straight swap with Rosberg around the Canada/USA point, so lacklustre were his 1st half performances that Ferrari were already weighing up whether or not to offload him. Kimi has driven much, much better seasons than 2007.

I'm a Hamilton fan but I can acknowledge his championship year was arguably his most inconsistent campaign as a driver and therefore one of his worst. The fact that he actually won the title from that is but a collection of circumstances - his own personal performance wasn't anything to write home about when you looked at the season as a whole.

Kimi did a good half season in 2007 which combined with McLaren/Hamilton's freak self implosion was enough to bag him the title, but he was a pedestrian for the other half of the year. It's easy to forget he was strongly being linked with a move to Williams in a straight swap with Rosberg around the Canada/USA point, so lacklustre were his 1st half performances that Ferrari were already weighing up whether or not to offload him. Kimi has driven much, much better seasons than 2007.

That's the first I've heard of that.

His first half of the season wasn't stellar but it wasn't as bad as you've made it out to be.

Villeneuve was given top car at time, did lot of testing and narrowly lost first season wdc to team mate Damon Hill in 1996

"narrowly"? Damon had himself to blame for not securing the WDC at Monza, but still, he won it by 19 points I think. Without JV DNF in the last race that would be like 16 or something, but at no point in the season JV was anywhere close to winning it.

Kimi did a good half season in 2007 which combined with McLaren/Hamilton's freak self implosion was enough to bag him the title, but he was a pedestrian for the other half of the year. It's easy to forget he was strongly being linked with a move to Williams in a straight swap with Rosberg around the Canada/USA point, so lacklustre were his 1st half performances that Ferrari were already weighing up whether or not to offload him. Kimi has driven much, much better seasons than 2007.

Are you sure? Rosberg only started to impress during the latter half of the season. He was behind Wurz after Canada. Raikkonen's "lacklustre" performances only lasted three races. Out of those, there was only one dreadful race which was Monaco. Canada was chaotic and USA he was just off the podium. Those were the only races he was off the podium (bar DNFs which weren't his fault).

In my opinion, his first half of the season was only considered lacklustre because he was expected to dominate in a Ferrari.

Are you sure? Rosberg only started to impress during the latter half of the season. He was behind Wurz after Canada. Raikkonen's "lacklustre" performances only lasted three races. Out of those, there was only one dreadful race which was Monaco. Canada was chaotic and USA he was just off the podium. Those were the only races he was off the podium (bar DNFs which weren't his fault).

In my opinion, his first half of the season was only considered lacklustre because he was expected to dominate in a Ferrari.

Well said.

But I'm intrigued about this straight swap with Rosberg, I've never heard such a rumour, and considering that PretentiousBread said Raikkonen was strongly linked with the swap.

I'd like to hear the reasons behind this one too JJ. A three time champion , once in his own car, and a competative race winner at what, age 44?

We haven't has a single WDC who wasn't a great driver. Some were a more natural talent than others. Some luckier than others. Some were more politically astute. But, all could drive the wheels off a car.

I'd like to hear the reasons behind this one too JJ. A three time champion , once in his own car, and a competative race winner at what, age 44?

We haven't has a single WDC who wasn't a great driver. Some were a more natural talent than others. Some luckier than others. Some were more politically astute. But, all could drive the wheels off a car.

Well said and unlike a certain 43 year old who recently re-retired. Jack Brabham was, at age 44 in 1970, still winning GPs against extremely competitive grids.

Well said and unlike a certain 43 year old who recently re-retired. Jack Brabham was, at age 44 in 1970, still winning GPs against extremely competitive grids.

Don't really see what relevance this point is - the physical conditioning of the F1 driver back then was comparatively shocking compared to today's drivers, it wasn't such a big deal for a 40+ year old to be winning because the younger drivers weren't exactly doing triathlons in their spare time either. And the grid these days is surely the most competitive the sport has ever seen. IMO Alonso, Hamilton & Vettel will all go down as true greats, in the same way Stewart, Prost, Senna etc. have. And then you add Raikkonen & Button to the mix and it's fair to say the current crop Schumacher has competed against in his second career has been a pretty formidable one.

But I'm intrigued about this straight swap with Rosberg, I've never heard such a rumour, and considering that PretentiousBread said Raikkonen was strongly linked with the swap.

Strongly linked was perhaps an exaggeration on my part, but it was reported by Autosport at the time. If you have access to iTunes, you can find it way back in their June 2007 podcast, from 10:50 onwards.

The reason I brought up this rumour was because with the passing of time, people's memory of the season naturally fades and they forget just how lacklustre Kimi was for much of his championship year. That this driver swap was even considered as a possibility only indicates how lowly Kimi's performances were regarded at the time. Although his position in the points standings didn't look too unrespectable compared to Massa's, his actual level of performance/speed was a clear second best to his at that point:

Australia - dominant win, though Massa had technical problems in qualifyingMalaysia - qualified 3rd in the best car, relied on some amateur racing exploits from Massa to finish on the podiumBahrain - outqualified by Massa and one of the McLaren's again, finished 10s behind his race winning team mateSpain- again outqualified by Massa and Alonso. Suffered misfortune with his engine expiring while running in 3rd positionMonaco - a bizarre mistake in Q2 clouting the armco left him a lowly 16th from which he was able to salvage 8th place in the raceCanada - outqualified Massa for first time since Australia, couldn't make much headway in the race finishing behind a number of slower carsUSA - outqualified by Massa, finishing behind him again

That's just two weekends out of 7 where it looked like Kimi had it in him to beat Massa, which would clearly have been worrying for Ferrari at the time, and even more so when you consider that they relieved Schumacher of his race seat in order to make way for Raikkonen, and yet when put to the task Kimi was unable to match the driver that Schumacher had contained so easily in his pocket the year before. When you look at this sample of races alone, it's not hard to see why rumours of him departing were circulating at the time.

To clarify my position on Raikkonen in relation to this thread - Kimi of course was, and is, a fabulous driver completely worthy of the title world champion, I just don't think his level of performance in 2007 was anything to write home about, certainly no where near as good as what it was like with McLaren 03-05. That he became world champion that particular season was mainly the product of Hamilton/McLaren throwing it away as much as anything else. Even then, I wouldn't consider 2007 to be one of the worst driver campaigns to have won a championship from, but it certainly wasn't one of the best.

Ah you are right! Sorry, a bit embarassed as I'm studying to be an engineer and can't do simple adding

In my defence, I think I confused the points system on two of the counts

But you are right, it wasn't a great first half of the season, and Hamilton with a 14 point lead over those three drivers then? Woow.

After France though his season falters a little and the other two up their game by quite a bit. If I remember correctly, both Hamilton and Massa where outperforming and matching their highly rated team-mates due to them having raced on Bridgestone tyres previously, while the other two where Michelin born and bred until 2007.

Strongly linked was perhaps an exaggeration on my part, but it was reported by Autosport at the time. If you have access to iTunes, you can find it way back in their June 2007 podcast, from 10:50 onwards.

The reason I brought up this rumour was because with the passing of time, people's memory of the season naturally fades and they forget just how lacklustre Kimi was for much of his championship year. That this driver swap was even considered as a possibility only indicates how lowly Kimi's performances were regarded at the time. Although his position in the points standings didn't look too unrespectable compared to Massa's, his actual level of performance/speed was a clear second best to his at that point:

Australia - dominant win, though Massa had technical problems in qualifyingMalaysia - qualified 3rd in the best car, relied on some amateur racing exploits from Massa to finish on the podiumBahrain - outqualified by Massa and one of the McLaren's again, finished 10s behind his race winning team mateSpain- again outqualified by Massa and Alonso. Suffered misfortune with his engine expiring while running in 3rd positionMonaco - a bizarre mistake in Q2 clouting the armco left him a lowly 16th from which he was able to salvage 8th place in the raceCanada - outqualified Massa for first time since Australia, couldn't make much headway in the race finishing behind a number of slower carsUSA - outqualified by Massa, finishing behind him again

That's just two weekends out of 7 where it looked like Kimi had it in him to beat Massa, which would clearly have been worrying for Ferrari at the time, and even more so when you consider that they relieved Schumacher of his race seat in order to make way for Raikkonen, and yet when put to the task Kimi was unable to match the driver that Schumacher had contained so easily in his pocket the year before. When you look at this sample of races alone, it's not hard to see why rumours of him departing were circulating at the time.

To clarify my position on Raikkonen in relation to this thread - Kimi of course was, and is, a fabulous driver completely worthy of the title world champion, I just don't think his level of performance in 2007 was anything to write home about, certainly no where near as good as what it was like with McLaren 03-05. That he became world champion that particular season was mainly the product of Hamilton/McLaren throwing it away as much as anything else. Even then, I wouldn't consider 2007 to be one of the worst driver campaigns to have won a championship from, but it certainly wasn't one of the best.

You spend too much time trying to nit pick a World Champion

On the other hand, Alonso was even more lack lusture in 2010... Directly the reason why Alonso deserve to lose that championship. He "bizzarely" crashed in Monaco too. Forget Massa who he failed to overtake in Germany, he didn't even have the skills to overtake petrov in AD.

In 2007, the year you keep trying your hardest to prove how bad Kimi was.... One Garage down Alonso was getting his ass handed to him by a Rookie.

Now you'll say in 2010 it was because overtaking was difficult in that era and blame Ferrari for eveything. Get a life, or give that same leeway to Kimi too... Who actually won the championship in the same strategic era.

PS- your Kimi was so shit that williams swap was on is a just sour grapes & complete bull crap

On the other hand, Alonso was even more lack lusture in 2010... Directly the reason why Alonso deserve to lose that championship. He "bizzarely" crashed in Monaco too. Forget Massa who he failed to overtake in Germany, he didn't even have the skills to overtake petrov in AD.

In 2007, the year you keep trying your hardest to prove how bad Kimi was.... One Garage down Alonso was getting his ass handed to him by a Rookie.

Now you'll say in 2010 it was because overtaking was difficult in that era and blame Ferrari for eveything. Get a life, or give that same leeway to Kimi too... Who actually won the championship in the same strategic era.

PS- your Kimi was so shit that williams swap was on is a just sour grapes & complete bull crap

Don't really see what relevance this point is - the physical conditioning of the F1 driver back then was comparatively shocking compared to today's drivers, it wasn't such a big deal for a 40+ year old to be winning because the younger drivers weren't exactly doing triathlons in their spare time either. And the grid these days is surely the most competitive the sport has ever seen. IMO Alonso, Hamilton & Vettel will all go down as true greats, in the same way Stewart, Prost, Senna etc. have. And then you add Raikkonen & Button to the mix and it's fair to say the current crop Schumacher has competed against in his second career has been a pretty formidable one.

It was a different sort of physical conditioning back then. That Brabham was able to remain competitive in 1970 against the likes of Rindt, Stewart, Ickx, Hulme, Amon, Fittipaldi, etc., etc., speaks volumes for his skills as a driver. I dare say that the cars back then were actually more difficult to drive than today's cars simply because the driver had to drive. Manual gearboxes, no power steering, no playstation whiz-bangs and gizmos, no massive run offs, no Tilke-designed mickey mouse layouts, real circuits that challenged the drivers and were unforgiving in the extreme. Today's grid is very competitive, granted, but no more so than some of those from years' past.